Mr BALDWIN (Paterson) (16:01): There is no denying the fact that carbon tax is bad for business, it is bad for Australia. I only need to point to the evidence yesterday: Kurri Hydro—344 jobs to go. This morning at 10 o'clock the company started the consultation process to make the determination about the wind-up mothballing. So when the parliamentary secretary says he looks forward to going out into the community to meet the workers, I say to him, 'Don't bother going to Kurri because there will be no workers at the factory, there will be no workers at the aluminium smelter.' What is misleading is that this parliamentary secretary has joined in the chorus with the Minister for Climate Change and Energy Efficiency by stating that Kurri Hydro say the carbon tax has not affected their decision to close the plant. I want to quote from correspondence, a press release and a letter I received yesterday from Mr Olaf Wigstol, the senior vice-president. It says in part: Following a thorough review, it is clear that the plant will not be profitable in the short term with current market prices, while long-term viability will be negatively affected by a number of factors including increasing energy costs and the carbon tax. Yesterday in the parliament, the Minister for Climate Change and Energy Efficiency responded to a question from the Leader of the Opposition by saying: I spoke to a company representative again today in relation to this issue who emphasised to me that the announcement today is not driven by the implications of the carbon price … That is misleading the House. He backed it up with a press release dated yesterday which restated that the announcement is: … driven by current financial losses that are unrelated to the carbon price, which does not begin until 1 July. On the ABC in Newcastle on 1233 this morning, I was interviewed alongside Minister Combet. During the discussion it was put to him by Aaron Kearney who actually read the website that carbon tax was a factor. Minister Combet for Climate Change and Energy Efficiency and the member for Charlton who actually has a number of these workers living in his electorate said, 'It is not a critical cornerstone, they have described it as one of the many factors in the long term.' So I am going to be rather generous today. I am going to ask the minister to come in and correct the record because this minister has deliberately misled the House. The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Hon. BC Scott ): Order! The member for Paterson will withdraw the words 'deliberately misled'. You can do that by substantive motion. Mr BALDWIN: I will tell you why I will not. Just let me finish for a second. The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The member for Paterson will withdraw or I will sit you down. Mr BALDWIN: I will withdraw then. The DEPUTY SPEAKER: You will withdraw unreservedly. Mr BALDWIN: I withdraw unreservedly. But on Monday, if he does not come into the House and correct the record, I will put it to the Privileges Committee for examination. Deputy Speaker, there are 344 workers on top of the 150 that have already gone in Kurri. Will this parliamentary secretary go out there and meet them? No, he will not. Will the Minister for Climate Change and Energy Efficiency stand up for his constituents? No, he will not. Because this government and, in particular the Minister for Climate Change and Energy Efficiency, are like an episode of Fawlty Towers. The Minister for Climate Change and Energy Efficiency plays the role of Basil so well. Just don't mention the war. Don't mention the carbon tax, don't mention the war. It is an episode of Fawlty Towers. The sad reality is that Fawlty Towers is actually funny; this government is not, and the impacts of the decisions of this government will affect our nation dramatically. In fact, modelling that was done will show that by 2050 Australia's aluminium industry could be slashed by 60 per cent and New South Wales Treasury estimates 18½ thousand job losses from the Hunter due to the carbon tax, and they have started. We can remember the Minister for Climate Change and Energy Efficiency during the waterfront dispute, standing with those workers—workers united will never be divided—standing up for their jobs. But when given the opportunity to stand up for the jobs of those people—some who live in the electorate of the minister and some who live in the electorates of the members for Hunter, Shortland and Newcastle and in my electorate—these members talk the talk but when it comes to walking the walk, the only thing they do is walk away. One would think they are like people who stand by conviction and beat their chest and deliver ultimatums. I would point to an ABC media interview just over a year ago, on 15 April 2011, when the national secretary of the Australian Workers Union, Paul Howes, warned this government, 'If one job is gone, our support for the carbon tax is gone.' Now, I expect it to be repealed 344 times because just in our patch that will be 344 jobs gone. But will Mr Howes now stand up to this government? Of course he will not, because he is one of the people who installed this Prime Minister—the same Prime Minister who promised there would be no carbon tax under the government that she led. What we are seeing is an episode of Fawlty Towers. Just do not mention the war, do not mention the carbon tax. It is disgraceful. I turn for a moment to my own portfolio of tourism. We have asked this government many times, through Senate estimates and directly of the Prime Minister: what modelling have you done on a carbon tax and its implications for the tourism industry? There has been none—no modelling. Let me point to modelling that was done by one of the industry associations, the Tourism and Transport Forum, whose modelling in the submission they put to this government said that if you bring a carbon tax in 6,400 jobs would go. These are working families that this Prime Minister talks about wanting to support, but she is prepared to see, in the tourism industry alone, 6,400 jobs go. They also said that the economic hit would be around $750 million off the bottom line. This is an industry that is already in financial trouble. They are going to have the carbon tax—oh, sorry; don't mention the war—imposed upon them. Qantas have said that the implications to them are around $150 million next year. Virgin have said that the cost implications to them are $45 million. People like Quicksilver and other cruise operators up on the Great Barrier Reef have said their cost impact in the fuel price increases alone will be $250,000 a year. This mob opposite do not understand business. If they understood business they would understand that we are actually in price-point-sensitive markets. The aluminium industry is a price-point-sensitive market but nowhere as much as the tourism industry. Now, a lot of those operators who are going to suffer this cost impost on 1 July have already forward-sold bookings for months and months to come on fixed prices. They cannot just lift their price because of the carbon tax, and what I fear is that even more jobs will go. Members opposite, particularly those in the Hunter where these jobs will go—and this will only be the beginning—have an opportunity to come into this House next week and move a bill that will suspend the carbon tax until at least after the next election when people, like those 344 workers at Kurri who are going to go, will have a chance to say what they think, and it is about time this government started to listen. Those members opposite who represent tourism electorates have an opportunity to come in here and stand up for their workers who are going to lose their jobs. This mob over there are very good at talking the talk. They are outstanding at talking the talk, but when it comes to walking the walk the only thing they ever do is walk away from the workers. We have seen it from the minister for climate change, who when he was not in power championed the case for the workers but when he gets here says, 'Oh, sorry.' There are all these excuses, but just do not mention the war. Well, let me tell you, there is a war. The coalition is fighting a war to save jobs. The government is fighting a war to kill off jobs and they should be condemned for it.